I knew that Hans Küng is a heretic, but I never knew that he was this funny.
Hans Küng has warned the Pope that he will ipso facto be a schismatic by allowing the SSPX back into the Church. Apparently the Big Tent Church the liberals love is all out of room.
Pope Benedict will be a schismatic because the SSPX has questions about Vatican II. Every other doctrine or dogma is up for discussion, but not Vatican II.
Both in the official and in the alternative activities in the Mannheim Katholikentag*, the prevailing sentiment was one of resentment and frustration over the delayed reforms in the Church. In fierce contrast with that, Pope Benedict XVI prepares, apparently for Pentecost, the final reconciliation with the Catholic Church of the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X, with its bishops and priests. This should happen even if the SSPX keeps rejecting key conciliar documents, having to be incorporated into the Church with the use of skillful canonical tactics. Before the Pope does this, he must be duly warned, not least by the bishops, because of the following:
1. The pope would be including in the Church bishops and priests that are definitely invalidly ordained. According to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI “Pontificalis Romani recognitio”, of July 18, 1968, the ordination of bishops and priests by Archbishop Lefebvre is not only illegal but also invalid. This view is shared among others by a relevant member of the “Doctrinal Commission”, Karl Josef Becker, SJ, now a cardinal.**
2. With such a scandalous decision, Pope Benedict would, in his overall regretted isolation, be even more separated from the People of God. The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when there is separation from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. “Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church.” (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).
3. A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread popular movement of “disobedience” against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. Instead of reconciling with the ultra-conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic SSPX, the Pope should rather care about the majority of reform-minded Catholics and reconcile with the churches of the Reformation and the entire ecumenical movement. Thus he would unite, and not divide.
So now he is claiming that the Church will have no Pope. It goes to show you that the crazies on the left end up in the same place as the crazies on the right.
May 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm
jajaja, that was funny!
May 25, 2012 at 2:55 am
A dododo a jajaja….. Yes funny
May 24, 2012 at 1:21 am
And Kung will bacome a sedevacantist 😀
May 24, 2012 at 1:41 am
The only authority Kung recognises is himself – he uses or rather misuses the term "People of God" (ad nauseum) when he demands something for which there is no valid authority. I don't see why he should be so worried about the Pope's authority as Pope being damaged by an SSPX reconciliation- as he hasn't accepted the Pope's authority for 50 years.
May 24, 2012 at 6:57 am
They(Hans Kung & Co.) never stop question the Church even when they are outside of it.
Just like the buddhist lesbian who make a scene blaming the Church for denying her Eucharist.
Buddhists I know don't talk about the Holy Eucharist only vegetarian meal and Dalai Lama.
May 24, 2012 at 7:13 am
Buddhists I know don't much approve of lesbianism, either.
May 24, 2012 at 9:19 am
You shouldn't talk ill of the people who've become sedevacantists from the "right side". The vast majority are good people, good Catholics, scandalized innumerable times by the clergy and todays Church, like most of us. None of us who have eyes to see and ears to hear can claim to not understand their decision; that it's "crazy", even if we don't agree.
May 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Who cares what Hans Kung thinks?
May 24, 2012 at 5:52 pm
This is the problem with keeping heretics in the priesthood……they cause more trouble as they get older. Hans Kung hasn't been Catholic for decades, and yet he has not been laicized. He has been permitted to spread error, knowing that nothing will be done to him. He will always have a roof over his head, clothes on his back and money in his wallet, all provided for by the Church he persecutes and hates. It does no good for the Church or for the heretic in question to allow him to remain in the priesthood. Now he will cause more error and even hatred for the Vicar of Christ and still the Church will do nothing to stop him. Well I guess that since the Pope refuses to discipline this man he deserves what he gets. I hate to sound harsh, but Kung will not repent, he will only grow more evil so I guess if the Church refuses to fight him then just take the abuse and then let the Pope abdicate and everybody will be happy.
May 24, 2012 at 6:42 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I'm neither a sedevancantist nor a liberal of the Kung stripe. But Kung is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
First, Benedict has reinforced JPII's arbritrary, revisionist error concerning capital punishment. The current trend toward abolition directly contradicts Scripture and Tradition (as well as two Doctors of the Church, Augustine and Aquinas).
Second, Benedict has not bothered to reprimand a German bishop who said publicly that Christ did not receive God's anger at sin while He was on the cross, nor an Austrian bishop who is promoting rebellion among Austrian priests.
If the Pope and the "orthodox" bishops don't take their role seriously, anymore, then why should Kung? For that matter, why should anybody?
When the Magisterium behaves as if it's the incarnation of Oceania's Ministry of Truth in Orwell's "1984," it's time to leave. I already have.
May 24, 2012 at 6:45 pm
My mistake: The Austrian I cited is a monsignior, not a bishop. Nevertheless, the rest of my opinion stands.
May 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Hans should put that missive on a felt banner.
May 24, 2012 at 8:24 pm
@John: sedevacantists claim the Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, teaches heresy. That is, that the gates of hell have prevailed against it. And yet they still wish to be Catholics—or Christians of any kind?
@Joseph D'Hippolito: JPII and Benedict's error on capital punishment is a matter of prudential judgment. If this invalidates the See of Peter, why didn't the Popes' prudential errors RE: the Holy Roman Empire do it?
The Pope is preserved from using his office to teach error—that is, as defining as doctrine that which cannot be doctrine. He is not preserved from errors on any matter that isn't definable as doctrine, and capital punishment isn't.
May 25, 2012 at 1:06 am
Pope Benedict XVI has the authority as Pope to validate the ordinations of those priests ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, in the same manner that a priest could bless a civil marriage and bring the couple into sacramental marriage, in the same manner the Pope has the authority to create ordinates to bring Anglicans and other Protestants into conformity with Rome. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Hans Kung ought to be disciplined, at least silenced from distracting the uninitiated, the uninformed, for his own good, lest he find himself, PERMANENTLY, in an ungodly place. I thought Hans Kung had passed away. Seems God is giving Kung more time to repent. Stupidity is not a sin, but is its own punishment.
May 25, 2012 at 1:34 am
I suspect the article is here for amusement value more than any genuine concern.
May 25, 2012 at 3:02 am
Joseph D'Hippolito: Josseph, do not leave Jesus, Jesus has not left you.
May 25, 2012 at 3:03 am
sorry Joseph
May 25, 2012 at 3:13 am
Mary, no apologies needed. I've done my share of misspellings on comment threads. 🙂
I can assure you that I have not left Jesus, His Father, nor His Spirit. I truly appreciate your concern.
JPII and Benedict's error on capital punishment is a matter of prudential judgment. If this invalidates the See of Peter, why didn't the Popes' prudential errors RE: the Holy Roman Empire do it?
Sophia's Favorite, that judgement might have started out as a prudential judgement but it has effectively found its way into the CCC.
Absp. Chaput, apparently, doesn't believe it's prudential, either. When Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated his doubts about the Church's position, Chaput equated him to Frances Kissling, founder of the pro-abortion Catholics For A Free Choice, in terms of obedience.
I wrote the following several years ago in response to the Vatican's condemnation of Saddam Hussein's execution; you'll see the problem is a lot more than prudential:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
May 25, 2012 at 3:56 am
"Sophia's Favorite, that judgement might have started out as a prudential judgement but it has effectively found its way into the CCC." That part of the CCC has been corrected in a revised edition. Society may not deprive Justice and a chance of final repentance to a murderer. Jesus died at capital punishment for blasphemy.
May 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm
What was lost in the actual debate on capital punishment was the principle of separation of church and state. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”. CAESAR BELONGS TO GOD. Pope John Paul II forgave his assassin and as a priest John Paul II forgives all assassins. It then falls to the state to prosecute the assassin, the capital one murderer. I can forgive my murderer, I cannot forgive your murderer without becoming an accessory after the fact and an enabler of a subsequent crime. Each and every person, as a citizen in the state, becomes a prosecutor of the capital one murderer. Capital punishment is the temporal punishment for capital one murder. Absolution and forgiveness does not remove temporal punishment which must be served by the murderer, unless the murderer can return and restore the life to his victim, otherwise the murderer says that the victim deserved to be put to death; committed a crime worthy of death. Justice and vindication of the innocent soul must accompany capital punishment. If the murderer were truly contrite, he would expire at the thought of his crime against God, humanity and his victim. The murderer must expire with grief over his crime as did his victim expire. It is the proper role of the state to execute Justice, to bring the capital one murderer to Justice as it is the work of the priest to forgive the sin.